Many things we think are true are not. Together we can fix that. @SteveDarden

Main menu

Post navigation

Greenpeace Inc.

A Greenpeace activist illegally destroys a genetically-modified (GM) wheat crop site in Australia. When ideology mixes with vast financial resources, the result can derail progress on climate change, energy, and food security.

Matthew Nisbet writing for The Breakthrough Institute pulls the covers off of Greenpeace, one of the most powerful global NGO’s. I have enormous respect for Mark Lynas, not least because Mark took responsibility for the bad things he did as a leader of the politically correct but oh-so-wrong activists. Personally I have a much harsher view than Mark of the responsibility that Greenpeace must take for both global warming and for hunger, poverty and malnutrition (anti-nuclear, anti-GMO respectively).

Matthew begins with this:

A March 9 profile on The Observer spotlights writer and activist Mark Lynas, who has gained notable attention for arguing that environmentalists need to reconsider their longstanding opposition to nuclear energy and genetic engineering. As Lynas told The Observer, during his days as an activist, he had viewed the Green movement as a brave, scrappy underdog – a little David battling the Goliaths of industry, government, and conservatives.

But the more he critically examined the work of Greens on issues like nuclear energy and genetic engineering, the more he was surprised to discover the vast financial and organizational resources available to organizations like Greenpeace.

The financial might of today’s environmental groups has helped narrow the gap with industry and their political allies across issues. Yet, as Lynas rightly argues, in some cases this same organizational wealth has helped institutionalize an ideological bias that threatens progress on issues like climate change and food security.

“The anti-nuclear movement is partly responsible for global warming,” Lynas told The Observer. “Everywhere, pretty much, where a nuclear plant was cancelled, a coal plant was built instead, and that’s because of the anti-nuclear movement. The environmental movement has been very successful in regulating GM [genetically-modified agriculture] out of existence in some parts of the world.”